BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[moira under the stairs]

I got a reply to my letter from Gauke’s office…..

It’s full of the usual flannel:

• “HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made”
• “Since both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not appropriate for the Government to interfere with that decision.”

But the last paragraph was particularly interesting:

• “Finally, as I hope you will appreciate, I am unable to comment on the individual cases you mention for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality. However, large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain’s public finances would be seriously damaged. The legislation that binds HMRC makes no distinction between types of taxpayer – whether it is an individual or a large business.”

Either that’s complete rubbish as clearly the Barclays and Vodaphone’s of the world are receiving different treatment to that of ourselves, or HMRC are planning to change their position….. I know what I’d bet my money on!!!

This, I would imagine, was prepared before the recent Indian debarcal

[Fireship]

Originally Posted by Fireship

I got a reply to my letter from Gauke’s office…..

It’s full of the usual flannel:

• “HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made”

So? Of course HMRC would consider their own position. Doesn't mean it did or didn't "work".

Originally Posted by Fireship

• “Since both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not appropriate for the Government to interfere with that decision.”

We are not asking them to interfere with that decision.

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point, I agree with you on both counts which is why I referred to it as flannel.... We've heard it all before….

The comment that is worth attention is the last part of the message which you seem to have been ignored – not that it means anything, it simply underlines the double standards and contradictions we seem to be on the receiving end of these days…

[Fireship]

This, I would imagine, was prepared before the recent Indian debarcal

Probably although they didn’t hit send on the email until 13:00 today – plenty of time to consider recent developments….

Left hand, right hand springs to mind!!

[Disgusted of Coventry]

What?

I got a reply to my letter from Gauke’s office…..

"...
However, large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain’s public finances would be seriously damaged. The legislation that binds HMRC makes no distinction between types of taxpayer – whether it is an individual or a large business.”

I can't make head nor tail of this!

How can these two sentences be simultaneously true?

[Emigre]

I can't make head nor tail of this!

How can these two sentences be simultaneously true?

errr, they can't unless HMRC are suddenly open to offers. There is one difference though - big business invites Hartnett out for dinner.

[TalkingCheese]

I got a reply to my letter from Gauke’s office…..
...

• “Finally, as I hope you will appreciate, I am unable to comment on the individual cases you mention for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality. However, large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain’s public finances would be seriously damaged. The legislation that binds HMRC makes no distinction between types of taxpayer – whether it is an individual or a large business.”

...

This is very strange indeed.

Maybe this is their way of trying to justify why large business can get a deal and we cannot. The legislation doesn't allow them to distinguish so they have to find some woolly means of working around it to safeguard the public purse !

As far as being unable to comment on individual cases this is just rubbish. We dont want them to comment on individual cases just:
- justify the indefinite retrospection
- let us know why it took 7 years to reach a conclusion
- let us know why the 4 test cases were not taken to Special Commissioners
- justify not adhering to their own protocols and Rees Rules
- for DG to let us know what he thinks of the legislation today. Has he changed his mind or are his hands still tied or is there just no incentive to change ?

[moira under the stairs]

This is very strange indeed.

Maybe this is their way of trying to justify why large business can get a deal and we cannot. The legislation doesn't allow them to distinguish so they have to find some woolly means of working around it to safeguard the public purse !

As far as being unable to comment on individual cases this is just rubbish. We dont want them to comment on individual cases just:
- justify the indefinite retrospection
- let us know why it took 7 years to reach a conclusion
- let us know why the 4 test cases were not taken to Special Commissioners
- justify not adhering to their own protocols and Rees Rules
- for DG to let us know what he thinks of the legislation today. Has he changed his mind or are his hands still tied or is there just no incentive to change ?

TUT.. Politicians aye who needs em !!... just goes to show its the tail wagging the dog, they are only there to be a face (or two in some cases) it seems the civil servants (HMRC) are running the show just giving the Muppets at the top snippets on what to say.

[swede]

"The legislation that binds HMRC makes no distinction between types of taxpayer – whether it is an individual or a large business.”

Explain Suo-Moto.

[Emigre]

Explain Suo-Moto.

From Wiki...

Suo motu, meaning "on its own motion," is a Latin legal term, approximately equivalent to the term sua sponte. For example, it is used where a government agency acts on its own cognizance, as in "the Commission took suo motu control over the matter."

Or as in HMRC took control of tax legislation...

[screwthis]

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point, I agree with you on both counts which is why I referred to it as flannel.... We've heard it all before….

The comment that is worth attention is the last part of the message which you seem to have been ignored – not that it means anything, it simply underlines the double standards and contradictions we seem to be on the receiving end of these days…

Agreed, this thing is riddled with contradictions.

I know we've heard it all before, I guess I focused on the first bit as I am stunned by Gauke's response of passing the buck back to the courts.
Parliament passed the law and then hide behind the courts when all the courts were doing is upholding the will of parliament. And even then they were not condoning s58 but mearly ruling on HR.